IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.
Rajeev Jhawar - Appellant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement - Respondent
Cr.M.C. 1018 of 2024 & Cr.M.A. 4071 of 2024
Decided On : 01-04-2024
NBW - Criminal Procedure - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Indian Penal Code, 1860, PMLA - Sections 7-A/8/9/10/12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, Section 420/120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 2(1)(u) of PMLA, Section 3 and Section 4 of PMLA, Section 174 of the IPC - The court analyzed the conduct of the accused, repeated non-appearance, and the legal provisions related to issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Indian Penal Code, 1860, and PMLA, and concluded that the Non-Bailable Warrants issued against the petitioner were justified.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of Non-Bailable Warrants (NBW) issued against him in a case related to Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Indian Penal Code, 1860, and PMLA. The petitioner had been accused of trying to influence a CBI case and was alleged to have committed the offence of money laundering.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had repeatedly failed to appear before the Trial Court despite multiple opportunities and warnings. The court also noted the legal provisions related to issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants and concluded that the NBWs issued against the petitioner were justified.
Issues: Repeated non-appearance of the petitioner before the Trial Court, issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants, and the legal provisions governing the issuance of NBWs.
Ratio Decidendi: The repeated non-appearance of the petitioner, failure to obtain bail, and the legal provisions related to issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants were the key factors influencing the court's decision to uphold the NBWs.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's bail application and upheld the issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants against the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. - The present application has been preferred on behalf of the applicant Rajeev Jhawar under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.') seeking quashing and setting aside of impugned order dated 02.02.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI-19 (PC Act), Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi (`Trial Court') in Complaint Case No. 08/2023, arising out of ECIR/DLZO-I/24/2022, titled as `Enforcement Directorate vs NMP Sinha and Ors.' issuing Non-Bailable Warrants (`NBW') against the petitioner and proceedings thereafter.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. On 02.10.2020, the Central Bureau of Investigation (`CBI') had registered RC AC?020/A0004, at CBI/AC-I, New Delhi under Sections 7-A/8/9/10/12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (`PC Act'). This was registered pursuant to receipt of an information that Sh. N.M.P. Sinha i.e. Ex. SP, CBI, New Delhi, in conspiracy with Sh. Vinay Jalan, Sh. Parth Jalan, Sh. Rajiv Jhawar (present applicant) i.e. M.D. of M/s. Usha Martin Ltd., Sh. Raj Kumar Kapoor i.e. Authorized Signatory of M/s. Usha Martin Ltd., and other unknown persons, was trying to influence the investigation of the case of CBI registered vide RC17(E)/2016 dated 20.09.2016 under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act and Section 420/120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC'), by EO-II Branch, New Delhi against I.D. Paswan, the then Director (Mines), Govt. of Jharkhand, M/s. Usha Martin Ltd. and other unknown persons. The allegations were that Sh. N.M.P. Sinha was the Supervisory Officer of the aforesaid case before his retirement on 31.08.2020, and Sh. Raj Kumar Kapoor was representing M/s. Usha Martin Ltd. on behalf of Sh. Rajiv Jhawar. As alleged, they were actively pursuing the case through Sh. Vinay Jalan who had assured them that he will get the investigation moulded in their favour through his contacts in CBI. On 23.09.2020, Sh. N.M.P. Sinha had met Sh. Vinay Jalan at hotel ITC Maurya, New Delhi for three-four hours and in his presence, Sh. Vinay Jalan had asked his son Parth Jalan to prepare a reply to the summons issued by CBI to M/s. Usha Martin Ltd. and asked him to meet Sh. N.M.P. Sinha on his next visit to New Delhi. Sh. N.M.P. Sinha also had a conversation with Sh. Parth Jalan. It was informed to CBI that Sh. Vinay Jalan will deliver a bribe of Rs.20 lakhs to Sh. N.M.P. Sinha to get the work done.
3. During investigation, a trap was laid and the accused persons namely Sh. N.M.P. Sinha and Sh. Vinay Kumar Jalan were arrested and an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- and Rs.5,12,000/- was recovered respectively from their possession. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed on 01.12.2020 against the accused persons namely (1) Nripendra Mohan Prasad Sinha @ N.M. P. Sinha, (2) Vinay Kumar Jalan, (3) Rajiv Jhawar, (4) Raj Kumar Kapoor, (5) M/s. Usha Martin Ltd. and (6) Hemant Joshi, under Sections 120B of IPC read with Sections 7/7A/8/9/10/12 of PC Act and substantive offences under Section 9 and 12 of PC Act.
4. Since, Section 120B of IPC and Sections 7, 7A, 8, 9, 10 and 12 of PC Act are Scheduled offences under the PMLA, enquiries were initiated under PMLA against the accused persons.
5. On the basis of the RC registered by the CBI, an ECIR No. RNSZO/17/2020 dated 29.10.2020 was recorded by Ranchi Sub-Zonal Office (now Zonal office), and the investigation in this case was initiated by Ranchi office. However, the ECIR was transferred to Delhi Zonal Office-1 and new ECIR No. DLZO-I/24/2022 was assigned on 18.05.2022. Thereafter, the investigation was carried out by the Delhi team of Directorate of Enforcement.
6. The case of Directorate of Enforcement, in brief, is that the applicant Rajeev Jhawar, Managing Director, M/s Usha Martin Ltd., on behalf of the accused company, had agreed to give a bribe of Rs.50 lakhs to Sh. N.M.P Sinha and as a first installment, Rs.30 lakhs was delivered to Vinay Kumar Jalan in Delhi for further handing over to N.M.P Sinha. However Rs.25 lak
Repeated non-appearance of the accused, failure to obtain bail, and the legal provisions related to issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants were crucial in justifying the NBWs.
Judicial discretion under Section 205 Cr.P.C. allows personal appearance exemptions in summary proceedings, ensuring fair trial processes while accommodating the accused's circumstances.
Non-bailable warrants should only be issued after careful consideration of personal liberty and societal interests, avoiding them unless absolutely necessary.
Exemption from personal appearance – Discretion to dispense with personal appearance should be exercised in rare cases but still it would be allowed to those accused who could not come to court due t....
The judgment established that the issuance of a non-bailable warrant should follow proper procedure and judicial guidelines, including the recording of satisfaction by the court.
The severity of the crime and specific allegations against the accused influenced the court's decision to issue warrants at the first instance.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.